Politanò (two bank references): Allegations, Court Orders and Status

What this case is about

C-225/15 is a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (Second Chamber) in the criminal proceedings against Domenico Politanò. The Tribunale di Reggio Calabria referred it on 28 February 2015, and the reference was received on 15 May 2015. The public prosecutor is the plaintiff side in the Italian proceedings.

Politanò is described in the record as a CTD manager linked to UniqGroup Ltd, Malta. The question was whether the Monti tender could require bidders formed less than two years earlier, with gaming revenue below EUR 2 million, to prove financial standing with statements from at least two banks.

The case belongs to the wider set of criminal cases against gambling operators tracked on this site.

Who is covered

The ruling matters to operators that bid for Italian betting concessions, in particular small Maltese bookmakers and the data-transmission centers (CTDs) linked to them that were excluded from the 2012 tender. It does not cover players. The legal basis is Directive 2004/18 art. 47 and Art. 49 TFEU.

The wider gambling lawsuits in the European Union page lists the other Court of Justice cases on gambling.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists in this case. It is a reference on how EU procurement and free-movement rules apply to a tender requirement, not a civil claim for money. The record shows no fund, no settlement and no claim process.

Filing a settlement claim is free wherever a claim exists, but none exists here. GamblingLawsuits.org is not a law firm and not a claims administrator.

What the Court decided

The Court of Justice gave its judgment on 8 September 2016. As of 14 November 2026 the case stands as a decided judgment.

The Court held that gambling concessions fall outside Directive 2004/18. It also held that Art. 49 TFEU does not preclude requiring two bank references as proof of economic standing, provided the national court finds the rule proportionate. The proportionality check was therefore left to the Tribunale di Reggio Calabria.

The record does not show how the Italian court applied that test afterwards.

Why it matters

The ruling closed one of the main arguments of CTDs linked to small Maltese bookmakers excluded from the 2012 tender. It is classed as a precedent: a bank-reference rule is not automatically a barrier to cross-border operators.

The outcome sits in a line with two related Italian rulings listed below. The wider pattern of prosecutions and tender fights is covered in our hub on criminal cases against gambling operators and organizers.

Questions people ask

Did the Court say the two-bank-reference rule is lawful?

Only conditionally. The Court held that Art. 49 TFEU does not preclude the requirement, provided the national court finds it proportionate. The judgment of 8 September 2016 left that final assessment to the Italian referring court.

Do gambling concessions fall under the EU procurement directive?

No. The Court held that gambling concessions fall outside Directive 2004/18, so the case turned on the Treaty rules on freedom of establishment and services instead.

Is Politanò a consumer or class action?

No. It is a preliminary reference in Italian criminal proceedings, and the record lists no class, no fund and no claim deadline.

Related cases

• C-463/13 Stanley International Betting and Stanleybet Malta v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze: another Court of Justice judgment on Italian betting rules, listed as decided.
• C-375/14 Criminal proceedings against Rosanna Laezza: a related criminal reference on the Italian concession regime, listed as decided.